9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dication Order No. Addl. (APK) 1-12-1992, dated 31-8-1992 under which the appellant has been held guilty of contravention of sections 14 and 19(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( the Act ) and penalties of Rs. 25,000 each have been imposed for the said contravention. The impugned order had been made in common adjudication proceedings in which Lloyd Steel Industries and Shri Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has not been proved for the reasons stated in the final order made in those appeals, the charge of contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) against the appellant cannot be sustained. 3. The charge of contravention of section 14 is based on the allegation that the appellant had been owning US $ 42581.43 from 18-9-1989 or before but had failed to offer it or caused it to be offered for sale to an autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing any opinion on the legal incidence of a credit note as the parties had no occasion to address arguments in that regard. 6. There is no evidence, except the credit note, to substantiate the allegation that the appellant owned and held the said amount of US $ 42581.43. Even if it is assumed that by virtue of the credit note the appellant had become owner and held the amount mentioned therein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m up to 18-9-1989, then he can be said to have had a right to receive the foreign exchange mentioned therein, a situation covered by section 16(1)(a). Thus, even if the Department were to rely on the said credit note, as they did, a charge of contravention of section 14 cannot be made out. 7. Apart from the above, the appellant has disputed the credit note itself and has given several reasons, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
